Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 10



File:American Freeway Patrol logo.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  08:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * File:American Freeway Patrol logo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Patchbook ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The file originally included the following 'warning': "As original owner I grant permission to Wikipedia or anyone else to use the photo without compensation provided it is unedited for the uploaded form." This, in itself, fails Db-f3. Original issues appart, this is a " embroidered patch used by the American freeway Patrol circa 1970", is this file in the PD, is the author, or is it copyrighted? Because now at Commons File:American Freeway Patrol logo.svg exists, which is a derivated work from this one. ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 02:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

FC Dinamo Bucuresti logos

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: keep one, remove its use in reserve team article (WP:NFC), other image was already deleted as F5 czar  19:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * File:Dinamo-logo.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Eddie Nixon ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).
 * File:FC Dinamo Bucuresti.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by DragosTataru ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free files which seem to be duplicates. "File:Dinamo-logo.PNG" is being used in the infobox of FC Dinamo II București and File:FC Dinamo Bucuresti.png is being used in the infobox of FC Dinamo București. Each file has a non-free use rationale for their respective uses, but I don't think both are really needed per WP:NFCC. It also appears that "FC Dinamo II București" is the reserve team of the main team which would seemingly make it a "child entity" per No. 17 of WP:NFC. Generally, the consensus established through previous FFD discussions has been not to allow the use of the non-free logo of a parent entity in articles about child entities, and I don't see any reason why such usage should be allowed in this particular case. A logo specific to the reserve team can be used if such a logo exists, but the default is not to automatically allow non-free use of the parent's logo in cases when it does not. So, I suggest keep for "FC Dinamo București" and remove for "FC Dinamo II București".

The question is then which of the two files should be kept. They are both pngs, but one is a little bigger than the other. "File:FC Dinamo Bucuresti.png" was uploaded in September 2016 as a separate file for some reason, when it probably should have just been uploaded as an updated version to the older file's page. If the file's name is an issue it might be able to be moved per WP:FNC, but I don't think a move is needed either way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete File:FC Dinamo Bucuresti.png and keep File:Dinamo-logo.PNG – The latter already has non-free rationales provided for both articles and was uploaded on 2 December 2011, while the former was uploaded on 26 September 2016 and is a duplicate, albeit smaller, image. I would also replace the inclusion in FC Dinamo București of the former with the latter in accordance with the non-free rationale that had been in place since 2 December 2011. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

*Keep File:Dinamo-logo.PNG and delete the duplicate uploaded later. In the Toronto FC and Toronto FC II articles, it's the same case. An affiliate playing in a different tiered league. While affiliated, they are separate teams who play their own leagues and own games, therefore not making it a child entity for playing in a lower calibre league. Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there's an important difference with respect to the two Toronto FC teams. If you look closely at File:Toronto FC Logo.svg and File:Toronto FC II logo.png, you'll see they are different logos. The basics are the same, but the logo for the FC II team has a roman numeral II in it while the logo for the "regular" FC team does not. The FC II logo is specific to that particular team, but the same can't be said for the two Dinamo Bucuresti teams. The fact that the two Bucuresti teams play in differet tiered leagues is not that relevant; it doesn't change the fact that the Dinamo II team is the reserve team to the "parent" Dinamo team. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. In that case I agree with using the more clear image in the parent team's article and removing it from the reserve team's article. Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The clearer image being File:FC Dinamo Burcuresti.png - if you view the image on a black background, the larger image has white traces all around it while the smaller image is clear of that. Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Histmerge Delete, File:FC Dinamo Bucuresti.png, move File:Dinamo-logo.PNG in its place and retain the newer file and the upload history of both images. I think that's the best course of action here. Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:MainPartsofRecoveryBoiler.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  08:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * File:MainPartsofRecoveryBoiler.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Finarashi ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Dubious copyright. This 2007 upload looks too much like a book scan, not the original work that is claimed. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:EarlyTomlinsonRB.gif

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  08:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * File:EarlyTomlinsonRB.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Finarashi ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Dubious copyright. This 2007 upload looks too much like a book scan, not the original work that is claimed. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.